Diagnosis and preventation of malaria

Further information: Romanowsky stain, Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests
Blood smear from a P. falciparum culture (K1 strain). Several red blood cells have ring stages inside them. Close to the center there is a schizont and on the left a trophozoite.

Since Charles Laveran first visualised the malaria parasite in blood in 1880,[38] the mainstay of malaria diagnosis has been the microscopic examination of blood.

Fever and septic shock are commonly misdiagnosed as severe malaria in Africa, leading to a failure to treat other life-threatening illnesses. In malaria-endemic areas, parasitemia does not ensure a diagnosis of severe malaria, because parasitemia can be incidental to other concurrent disease. Recent investigations suggest that malarial retinopathy is better (collective sensitivity of 95% and specificity of 90%) than any other clinical or laboratory feature in distinguishing malarial from non-malarial coma.

Although blood is the sample most frequently used to make a diagnosis, both saliva and urine have been investigated as alternative, less invasive specimens.

Symptomatic diagnosis

Areas that cannot afford even simple laboratory diagnostic tests often use only a history of subjective fever as the indication to treat for malaria. Using Giemsa-stained blood smears from children in Malawi, one study showed that when clinical predictors (rectal temperature, nailbed pallor, and splenomegaly) were used as treatment indications, rather than using only a history of subjective fevers, a correct diagnosis increased from 21% to 41% of cases, and unnecessary treatment for malaria was significantly decreased.
Microscopic examination of blood films
For more details on individual parasites, see P. falciparum, P. vivax, P. ovale, P. malariae.

The most economic, preferred, and reliable diagnosis of malaria is microscopic examination of blood films because each of the four major parasite species has distinguishing characteristics. Two sorts of blood film are traditionally used. Thin films are similar to usual blood films and allow species identification because the parasite's appearance is best preserved in this preparation. Thick films allow the microscopist to screen a larger volume of blood and are about eleven times more sensitive than the thin film, so picking up low levels of infection is easier on the thick film, but the appearance of the parasite is much more distorted and therefore distinguishing between the different species can be much more difficult. With the pros and cons of both thick and thin smears taken into consideration, it is imperative to utilize both smears while attempting to make a definitive diagnosis.

From the thick film, an experienced microscopist can detect parasite levels (or parasitemia) down to as low as 0.0000001% of red blood cells. Diagnosis of species can be difficult because the early trophozoites ("ring form") of all four species look identical and it is never possible to diagnose species on the basis of a single ring form; species identification is always based on several trophozoites.
Field tests

In areas where microscopy is not available, or where laboratory staff are not experienced at malaria diagnosis, there are antigen detection tests that require only a drop of blood. Immunochromatographic tests (also called: Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests, Antigen-Capture Assay or "Dipsticks") have been developed, distributed and fieldtested. These tests use finger-stick or venous blood, the completed test takes a total of 15–20 minutes, and a laboratory is not needed. The threshold of detection by these rapid diagnostic tests is in the range of 100 parasites/µl of blood compared to 5 by thick film microscopy. The first rapid diagnostic tests were using P. falciparum glutamate dehydrogenase as antigen.[43] PGluDH was soon replaced by P.falciparum lactate dehydrogenase, a 33 kDa oxidoreductase [EC 1.1.1.27]. It is the last enzyme of the glycolytic pathway, essential for ATP generation and one of the most abundant enzymes expressed by P.falciparum. PLDH does not persist in the blood but clears about the same time as the parasites following successful treatment. The lack of antigen persistence after treatment makes the pLDH test useful in predicting treatment failure. In this respect, pLDH is similar to pGluDH. The OptiMAL-IT assay can distinguish between P. falciparum and P. vivax because of antigenic differences between their pLDH isoenzymes. OptiMAL-IT will reliably detect P. falciparum down to 0.01% parasitemia and other species down to 0.1%. Paracheck-Pf will detect parasitemias down to 0.002% but will not distinguish between falciparum and non-falciparum malaria. Parasite nucleic acids are detected using polymerase chain reaction. This technique is more accurate than microscopy. However, it is expensive, and requires a specialized laboratory. Moreover, levels of parasitemia are not necessarily correlative with the progression of disease, particularly when the parasite is able to adhere to blood vessel walls. Therefore more sensitive, low-tech diagnosis tools need to be developed in order to detect low levels of parasitemia in the field.
Molecular methods

Molecular methods are available in some clinical laboratories and rapid real-time assays (for example, QT-NASBA based on the polymerase chain reaction)[44] are being developed with the hope of being able to deploy them in endemic areas.
Rapid antigen tests
Further information: Malaria Rapid Diagnostic Tests

According to a manufacturer, a commercially available test will reliably detect falciparum down to 0.01% parasitemia and non-falciparum down to 0.1%, and another can detect parasitemias down to 0.002% but will not distinguish between falciparum and non-falciparum malaria. Parasite nucleic acids are detected using polymerase chain reaction. This technique is more accurate than microscopy. However, it is expensive, and requires a specialized laboratory. Moreover, levels of parasitemia are not necessarily correlative with the progression of disease, particularly when the parasite is able to adhere to blood vessel walls. Therefore more sensitive, low-tech diagnosis tools need to be developed in order to detect low levels of parasitaemia in the field.

Prevention
Anopheles albimanus mosquito feeding on a human arm. This mosquito is a vector of malaria and mosquito control is a very effective way of reducing the incidence of malaria.

Methods used to prevent the spread of disease, or to protect individuals in areas where malaria is endemic, include prophylactic drugs, mosquito eradication, and the prevention of mosquito bites. The continued existence of malaria in an area requires a combination of high human population density, high mosquito population density, and high rates of transmission from humans to mosquitoes and from mosquitoes to humans. If any of these is lowered sufficiently, the parasite will sooner or later disappear from that area, as happened in North America, Europe and much of Middle East. However, unless the parasite is eliminated from the whole world, it could become re-established if conditions revert to a combination that favors the parasite's reproduction. Many countries are seeing an increasing number of imported malaria cases due to extensive travel and migration.

Many researchers argue that prevention of malaria may be more cost-effective than treatment of the disease in the long run, but the capital costs required are out of reach of many of the world's poorest people. Economic adviser Jeffrey Sachs estimates that malaria can be controlled for US$3 billion in aid per year.

The distribution of funding varies among countries. Countries with large populations do not receive the same amount of support. The 34 countries that received a per capita annual support of less than $1 included some of the poorest countries in Africa.

Brazil, Eritrea, India, and Vietnam have, unlike many other developing nations, successfully reduced the malaria burden. Common success factors included conducive country conditions, a targeted technical approach using a package of effective tools, data-driven decision-making, active leadership at all levels of government, involvement of communities, decentralized implementation and control of finances, skilled technical and managerial capacity at national and sub-national levels, hands-on technical and programmatic support from partner agencies, and sufficient and flexible financing.